CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2410/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1448 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANT KUMAR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Period of limitation
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH , JM IT (TP) A NO. 2410/ MUM/20 1 7 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 ) M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, QUADRANT A THE IL & FS FINANCIAL CE NTRE PLOT NO.C - 22, G BLOCK BKC, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI 400 051 VS. ASST CIT 14(1)(2) R.NO.460, AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 PAN/GIR NO. AABCC4522F ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) IT (TP) A NO. 2506 / MUM/20 17 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 ) ASST CIT 14(1) (2) R.NO.460, AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 VS. M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, QUADRANT A THE IL & FS FINANCIAL CENTRE PLOT NO.C - 22, G BLOCK BKC, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI 400 051 PAN/GIR NO. AABCC4522F ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPOND ENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI MUKESH BUTANI / MS. KARISHNA PHATANPHEKAR & SHRI HARSH SHAH REVENUE BY SHRI JAYANT KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 15 / 10 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 / 11 /201 8 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 55, MUMBAI DATED 30/12/2016 FOR A.Y.2011 - ITA NO. 2410/MUM/2017 & 2506/MUM/2017 M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 2 12 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN INDIA AND IS A SUBSIDIARY OF CARLYLE ASIA INVESTMENT ADVISORS LIMITED (CARLYLE HONG KONG) AND IS ENGAGED IN RENDERING NON - BINDING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES TO CARLYLE HONG KONG. THE ASS ESSEE HAS RENDERED NON - BINDING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES TO ITS AE. THE SERVICES OFFERED ARE IN THE NATURE OF IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN INDIA FOR THE GROUP. THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSACTION IS DISCUSSED IN THE TP REPORT. IT HAS CONSIDERED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD BY CONDUCTING ANALYSIS WHEREIN THE OPERATING MARGIN OVER OPERATING COST IS USED AS THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR. 3. IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES RENDERED, THE ASSESSEE HAS USED TNMM ANAL YSIS FOR BENCHMARKING THE PRICE. THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) USED IS OPERATING PROFIT TO OPERATING COST. THE ASSESSEE'S MARGIN WAS 15 PERCENT AND THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF THE COMPARABLES WAS COMPUTED AT 15.20 PERCENT. ON THE BASIS OF THIS ANALYSIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCLUDED THAT TRANSACTION WITH ITS AES IS AT ARM'S LENGTH. 4. THE AO REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE TPO U/S. 92C. THE TPO REJECTED TP STUDY AND PROPOSED INCLUSION OF FOLLOWING COMPARABLES. NAME OF THE COMPARABLES OP/OC MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT AD VISORS PVT. LTD., 82.51% LADDERUP CORPORATE ADVISORY PVT. LTD., 52.42% ITA NO. 2410/MUM/2017 & 2506/MUM/2017 M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 3 5. HOWEVER, TPO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE INCLUSION OF ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., AND IDC (INDIA) LTD., IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES FOR DECIDING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. ACC ORDINGLY TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS.18,04,89,850/ - WAS MADE BY THE TPO. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF AO / TPO, ASSESSEE APPROACHED TO THE CIT(A). 6. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) DIRECTED FOR EXCLUSION OF MOTILAL OWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT. LTD., HO WEVER, HE HAS CONFIRMED THE INCLUSION OF ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., AND IDC (INDIA) LTD., AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION. 4.4; 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. CRUX OF THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS THAT REJECTION OF THE TWO CASES OF ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES AND IDC (INDIA) LTD, SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INCLUSION OF TWO CASES, THAT IS, MOTILA L OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS AND LADDER UP CORPORATE ADVISORY WHICH HAD FOLLOWING MARGINS WAS ERRONEOUS: SL.NO. COMPANY NAME AY 2011 - 12 (PERCENT) 1 ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LIMITED - 40.46 2. IDC (INDIA LIMITED 10.33 AVERAGE - 15.07 SL.NO. COMPANY NAME AY 2011 - 12 (PERCENT) 1 MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 82.51 2. LA DDERUP CORPORATE ADVISORY PVT. LTD., 52.42 AVERAGE 67.47 4.5; IN THIS CONNECTION IT APPEARS FROM THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS AND THE TPO'S ORDER AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT (1) THE ASSESS EE HAS SELECTED AND BASED ITS CONCLUSIONS REGARDING 'TRANSFER PR ICING' BY SELECTING THOSE CASES AS 'COMPARABLES' WHICH HAVE EITHER THE 'LOWEST MARGINS' AND/OR ITA NO. 2410/MUM/2017 & 2506/MUM/2017 M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 4 'NEGATIVE MARGINS' AS COMPARED TO THE MARK UP OF 15% TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CASES AND (2) THE TPOS , YEAR AFTER YEAR HAVE ALWAYS INCLUDED THOSE CASES AS 'COMPARAB LES' WHICH HAVE EITHER' HIGH MARGINS' OR 'SUBSTANTIALLY HIGH MARGINS' THAN THE MARK UP OF 15% TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR SELECTION OF THE COMPARABLES AND TO NEGATE THE VERY CASE OF THE 'COMPARABILITY ANALYSIS' OF FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR BUSINESS CA SES IN TOTAL DIS REGARDS TO THE I TAT AND THE HIGH COURT DECISIONS IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR BUSINESS CASE OF OTHER CASES REPORTED AND IN PUBLIC DOMAIN AND EVEN THOSE CASES WHICH HAVE BEEN QUOTED AND RELIED UPON BY THE [TAT S IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR EARLIER A Y.S FROM A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO A.Y, 2010 - 3 1 AS FOLLOWS: SIX CASES QUOTED ON PAGE 10 (PARA 12) OF THE ITAT ORDER DATED 18/11/2015 FOR A.Y.2010 - 11 AREAS UNDER: [1] ACUMEN FUND ADVISORY SERVICES PVT.LTD. (ITA 143 /MUM/2014] DATED 04.07.2014 (2) BAIN CAPITAL ADVISORS (INDIA] PVT. LTD. (ITA 1360/MUM/2014) DATED 05.01,2015 (3) Q - INDIA INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVTUD. (ITA 923/MUM/2015) DATED 20.04,2015 (4) NVP VENTURE CAPITAL INDIA PVT.LTD, (ITA 1564/MUM/2015) DATED 30.04 .2015 (5) BAIN CAPITAL ADVISORS (INDIA] PVT.UD,(ITA 4L3/MUM/2015] DATED 15 TH MAY 2015 (6) WELLS FARGO REAL ESTATE ADVISORS PVTLTD.FLTA 1093/MUM/2015] DATED 27.05.2015 TWO CASES OF FUTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISERS LTD. AND FUTURE CAPITAL HOLD INGS LIMITED (INVESTMENT SEGMENT] MENTIONED IN PARA 7 OF ITAT ORDER DATE DL8/L. 1/2015 FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 AREAS UNDER: 1] FUTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD, 2] FUTURE CAPITAL HOLDINGS MMITEDFLNVESTMENT ADVISORY SEGMENT) 4.6. IT APPE ARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE TPO REJECTED THE LIST OF FIVE COMPARABLES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TPSR OF NOVEMBER 2011 OF PWC & CO. AND ALSO REJECTED THE LIST OF TWO COMPARABLES OF IMCS AND IDC HAVING AVERAGE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF ( -- ) 15.07 %, THAT I S, NEGATIVE ARITHMETIC MEAN AND INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING TWO CASE OF MOTILAL OSWAL AND LADDER UP CORPORATE ADVISORY HAVING AVERAGE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF 67.47% EVEN THOUGH THE NAMES OF BOTH THESE COMPANIES S ' COMPARABLES' WERE REJECTED BY THE ITAT AND THE BOMB AY HIGH COURTS IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. 4.7 PRIMA FACIE IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SIX CASES MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 12 ON PAGE 12/13 OF THE ITAT ORDER FOR A.Y.2010 - 11 AND TWO CASES MENTIONED AND INDIRECTLY APPROVED BY THE ITAT< MUMBAI IN ITS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18/11/2015, MAKING IT A TOTAL OF EIGHT CASES WILL CONSTITUTE A FAIR AND REASONABLE BASKET OF FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR BUSINESS CASES TO BE TAKEN FOR WORKING OUT OF AVERAGE MAEAN OF THE OP/OC FOR A.Y.2011 - 12 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 92/92CA RE AD WITH RULES ITA NO. 2410/MUM/2017 & 2506/MUM/2017 M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 5 10B(2)(4) OF I.T. RULES, 1962 AND SUBJECT TO THE ALLOWANCE OF VARIATION OF +/ - 5% AS MANDATED IN SECOND PROVISO TO SUBSECTION 92C(2) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 , AS IT EXISTED ON THE STATUTE PRIOR TO 1/4/2013 BY FINANCE ACT 2012 AND THESE SHOULD B E ADOPTED AS VALID AND FAIR 'COMPARABLES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 92C/92CA OF I.T.ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULES 10B OF L.T.RUIES, 1962. IN NUTSHELL, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NUMBERS 4 AND 4.1 TO 4.6, EXCEPT GROUND NUMBER 4.5 ARE HEREBY REJECTED AND GROUND NUMB ER 4.5 , IF APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AFTER CALCULATING THE AVERAGE ( ARITHMETIC MEAN OF OP/OC FOR THE EIGHT COMPANIES AND THEN APPLYING THE SAME TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 AS PER THE LAW IS HEREBY ALLOWED S UBJECT TO VERIFICATION AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED IN EARLIER PARAGRAPHS. IN NUTSHELL, APPEAL IN RESPECT OF GROUND NUMBERS 4, 4.1 TO 4.6 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5.1 IN THE RESULT, ASSESSSEE'S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT(A) ASSESS EE AND REVENUE ARE IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED AR PLACED ON RECORD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY DIFFERENT BENCHES WHEREIN THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS EXCLUSION OF MOTILAL OAWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT. LTD., AND LADDERUP CORPORATE ADVISORY PVT. LTD., IS CONCERNED. LEARNED AR ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH WHEREIN ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LIMITE D AND IDC (INDIA) LIMITED WERE ALLOWED TO BE INCLUDED AS COMPARABLE IN THE CASE OF COMPANIES ENGAGED IN RENDERING NON - BANKING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. WE HAD ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE DATED 22/08/2014 FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 10 AND OTHER CO - ORDINATE BENCH DECISION WHEREIN EXACTLY SIMILAR ITA NO. 2410/MUM/2017 & 2506/MUM/2017 M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 6 ISSUE WAS DEALT WITH. WE FOUND THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 10 A ND 2010 - 11, THE TPO HAS INCLUDED MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT. LTD., AS COMPARABLE. HOWEVER, THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 22/08/2014 HAS DIRECTED FOR EXCLUSION OF SAME, WHICH READS AS UNDE R: - 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RENDERING INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS PRINCIPAL CARLYLE HONG KONG. THE DISPUT E RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO WHETHER (I) KLG CAPITAL SERVICES LTD (KLG); (II) KJMC CORPORATE ADVISORS (INDIA) LIMITED (KJMC) AND (III) MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD (MOIAPL) ARE FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE CASES OR NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING MOIAPL, ASSESSEE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2008 - 2009, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 282 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT IT IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITA NO.7367/MUM/2012 (AY 2008 - 2009), DATED 7.2.2014. ON PERUSAL OF PARA 12 OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH CONTAINS THE OPERATIONAL PART, WE FIND THE SAME IS RELEVANT AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN ITS FINDING UNDER THE FACTS WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE MOIAPL, WHICH HAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MERCHANT BANKING IS NOT A GOOD COMPARABLE FOR DETERMINING THE ALP . RELEVANT CONTENTS OF THE SAID PARA 12 ARE REPRODUCED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: 12. ..THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE FOR DETERMINATI ON OF ALP. A PERUSAL OF THREE COMPARABLES CONSIDERED BY THE TPO SHOWS THAT M/S. FUTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD., HAS OPERATING PROFIT AT 21.79% WHEREAS OPM OF MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD IS 72.33%. THE COMPARABLES USED BY THE TPO THEM SELVES ARE SHOWING EXTREME OPM. A PERUSAL OF THE DIRECTORS REPORT OF MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD SHOWS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE SAID COMPANY HAS COMPLETED 23 ASSIGNMENTS SUCCESSFULLY AS AGAINST 14 COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDI ATELY PRECEDING YEAR. A CLOSE LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE SAID COMPANY SHOW THAT THE INCOME FROM OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN SHOWN ONLY AS ADVISORY FEES WHEREAS IT IS ADMITTEDLY AN UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS ENGAGED ITA NO. 2410/MUM/2017 & 2506/MUM/2017 M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 7 IN DIVERSIFIED ACTIV ITIES. SEGMENTAL REPORTING IS NOT AVAILABLE. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT APPEARS TO BE ONLY OF CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS. THE SAID COMPANY IS REGISTERED WITH SEBI AS A MERCHANT BANKER AND THE DIRECTORS REPORT SHOW THAT IT IS INTO TAKEOVER, ACQUISITIONS, DISINVESTMENTS ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC DATA IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE COMPARISON. IT CAN THEREFORE, BE SAFELY SAID THAT THE SAID COMPANY BEING INTO MERCHANT BANKING AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE AO NOT TO CONSIDER MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD AS A COMPARABLE FOR DETER MINATION OF ALP. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO EXCLUDE THE MOIAPL FROM THE LIST OF THE COMPARABLES FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP OF THE SAID TRANSACTION. 1 0 . WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS F ILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR EXCLUDING MOTILAL OSWAL INDIA LTD., FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. SIMILARLY WE FOUND THAT IN THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS , THE TRIBUNAL HAVE DIRECTED FOR EXCLUSION OF LADDERUP CORPORATE ADVISORY PVT. LTD., DCIT V. GENERAL ATLANTI C PVT. LTD. [2018 ) 91 TAXMANN.COM 406 (MUM - TRIB) TEMASEK HOLDING ADVISORS PVT. LTD. V. DCIT [2017] 87 TAXMANN.COM 168 (MUM - TRIB) WELLS FARGO REAL ESTATE ADVISORS PVT. LTD. V. DCIT [2018] TAXMANN.COM 18 (MUM - TRIB) 1 1 . WE HAD GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL HAVE DIRECTED FOR EXCLUSION ITA NO. 2410/MUM/2017 & 2506/MUM/2017 M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 8 OF LADDERUP CORPORATE ADVISORY PVT. LTD., IN CASE OF COMPANIES ENGAGED IN RENDERING NON - BANKING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. 12 . SIMILARLY IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THE TRIBUNAL HAVE DIRECTED FOR INCLUSION OF ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., IN CASE OF ASSESSEES ENGAGED IN RENDERING NON - BANKING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. AGM INDI A ADVISORS PVT. LTD. V. DCIT [2017] 79 TAXMANN.COM 86 (MUM - TRIB) GOLDM AN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT. LTD. V. ACIT [2017] 78 TAXMANN.COM 142 (MUM - TRIB) 13 . WE HAD CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND FOUND THAT UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL HAVE DIRECTED FOR INCLUSION OF ICRA MANAGEM ENT CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES IN CASE OF COMPANIES ENGAGED IN PROVIDING NON - BANKING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION OF CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO F OR EXCLUSION GO ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 14 . IN THE CASE OF IDC INDIA LTD., WE FOUND THAT IN THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAVE DIRECTED FOR INCLUSION OF IDC (INDIA) LTD., IN THE LIST OF C OMPARABLES IN CASE OF ASSESSEES ENGAGED IN PROVIDING NON - BANKING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. DCIT V. GENERAL ATLANTIC PVT. LTD. [2018 ) 91 TAXMANN.COM 406 (MUM - TRIB) TEMASEK HOLDING ADVISORS PVT. LTD. V. DCIT [2017] 87 TAXMANN.COM 168 (MUM - TRIB) ITA NO. 2410/MUM/2017 & 2506/MUM/2017 M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 9 WELLS FAR GO REAL ESTATE ADVISORS PVT. LTD. V. DCIT [2018] TAXMANN.COM 18 (MUM - TRIB) AGM INDI A ADVISORS PVT. LTD. V. DCIT [2017] 79 TAXMANN.COM 86 (MUM - TRIB) GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT. LTD. V. ACIT [2017] 78 TAXMANN.COM 142 (MUM - TRIB) 15 . AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INSTANT CASE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SAME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH AS LISTED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION OF CIT(A) FOR NOT ALLOWING INCLUSION OF IDC( INDIA) LTD., IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 16. IN RESPECT OF FUTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORIES AND FUTURE CAPITAL HOLDING WHICH WAS INCLUDED BY TPO IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, WE OBSERVE THAT THESE COMPANIES DID NOT HAVE ANY OPERATIONS DURING THE YEAR, H ENCE CANNOT BE USED IN THE BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 17. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN GROUND TO THE EFFECT THAT ORDER PASSED BY AO IS BARRED BY LIMINI AND THAT ASSESSMENT ABATED IN ASSESSEES CASE. SINCE, W E HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON MERIT, WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) [ X CIT(A)'] HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ('AO') WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IT IS BAD - IN LAW AND BARRED BY THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PROVIDED BY THE INCOME - TAX AC T, 1961 ('THE ACT') ITA NO. 2410/MUM/2017 & 2506/MUM/2017 M/S. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., 10 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN ABATED, SINCE THE LEARNED AO HAS FAILED TO PASS THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION IN CIT(A) ORDER WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PRO VIDED BY THE ACT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE AND/OR MODIFY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 18. AS WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON M ERITS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SO RAISED HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED WHEREIN APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 / 11 /201 8 SD/ - ( PAWAN SINGH ) SD/ - (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 24 / 11 /201 8 KARUNA SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESP ONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//